Michael Bourn vs. #11 pick: A 100-player sample

The debate rages on whether or not the Mets should forfeit their first-round pick, the #11 selection overall, in order to sign free agent Michael Bourn. Those in favor of the move point out that Bourn would address a major need for the Mets while those opposed think the club is unlikely to contend while Bourn would be good and that the club would be better off continuing its youth movement by stockpiling draft picks.

When the offseason started, Bourn was not on my radar. It seemed like the Mets would not be able to afford him and his lack of power and his batting from the left side of the plate seemed like it would not be a great fit for the club. Then throw in the draft pick it would cost to sign him and it seemed like a foolish idea.

But after spending more time thinking about all of the pros and cons, my opinion has changed.

Part of my initial opposition to signing Bourn was my belief that he just wasn’t very good. But it’s four straight years now that he’s been better than good. From 2009-2012, Bourn has amassed 20.1 fWAR, which is the 16th-best mark for a non-pitcher in MLB. Bourn has provided more value in this time period than Prince Fielder, more than Josh Hamilton and more than David Wright.

This is a hard concept for people to grasp because so much of his value comes on the defensive side of the ball. Rightfully so, people in general do not trust defensive metrics as much as they do offensive ones. But there are several different systems out there – UZR, Defensive Runs Saved, Total Zone, to name just three – and they all agree that Bourn is terrific defensively. He also passes the eye test out there.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that the defensive numbers are accurately portraying Bourn’s value. It’s still far from clear if he’s worth pursuing for the Mets. Let’s look at the reasons not to sign Bourn: The #11 pick is too valuable to give up, the Mets are not close enough to winning to make Bourn an attractive play and do you really want one of your high-salary players to be Bourn?

By far the most often-cited reason to pass on Bourn is forfeiting the draft pick. Everyone assumes the #11 pick is extremely valuable but we need to determine both how valuable it is and how valuable it is compared to what Bourn is likely to give. Let’s look at the second part first. Bourn posted a 6.4 fWAR last year but it does not seem accurate to use that as his worth going forward.

Over the last four years, he’s averaged just over 5.0 fWAR per season. But Bourn turned 30 in the offseason and it’s likely that his value will decrease going forward. A typical, back of the envelope, conservative forecast is to have a player’s value decrease by 0.5 WAR per year. Let’s assume that the Mets can sign Bourn for a three-year deal. We would calculate his expected value as 4.5 fWAR in 2013, 4.0 in 2014 and 3.5 in 2015 for a total of 12 fWAR over the life of the contract.

How likely is it that the #11 draft pick would produce 12 WAR?

We can go back and look to see what the #11 pick has done previously. And the historical answer is – not very much. In the 20-year period from 1980-1999 (chosen to allow people enough time to complete the majority of their MLB career) there has not been one superstar picked. The closes thing to a star is Shane Mack, who went on to play parts of nine seasons in the majors.

Perhaps 20 is not a large enough sample. So, below is a chart detailing the 9th through 13th picks of those same drafts, giving us a sample of 100 players. The chart is color-coded, based on the career MLB bWAR of the picks. Here’s what the colors mean:

Only 23 percent of the 100 draft picks in our sample produced a lifetime bWAR of 12 or above. Some of these were Hall of Fame talents, like McGwire, Ramirez and Wagner. But there were also guys like Weiss, who compiled a 14.6 bWAR in 14 seasons. Is that really more valuable than getting 12 WAR in three seasons?

My preference would be for the expected 12 WAR of Bourn over the next three years to a dozen of the players highlighted in green that surpassed 12 WAR but who took a dozen or so years to compile that total, like Weiss in the illustration above.

Additionally, 46 of the 100 players either did not make the majors or they posted a negative WAR when they did. You were twice as likely to get a bust then a 12-WAR player from our sample. That’s pretty amazing.

One could make the case that drafting has improved since the time period under review here. But it would be a mistake to think that it’s now a given that a player drafted around #11 will make and contribute in the majors. In the first two years after this study alone, six of the 10 players drafted in these slots failed to make the majors.

Each person would have to decide for themselves where it makes sense to keep the draft pick and where it makes sense to surrender it and sign Bourn. To me, the 20-year sample above is nowhere close to where it would make sense to hoard the draft pick.

From a pure mathematical point of view, my preference would be to have about a 25% chance of drafting a guy who could put up, say, a lifetime 30 WAR and above, with another 25% chance of drafting a guy who could put up a lifetime double-digit WAR. Basically it would be nice to see 50-50 odds of getting a true All-Star with the pick, not some guy who gets picked because a team needs a representative. Our chart shows less than a 25% chance of getting an AS-type player.

And even that doesn’t address one problem – the Mets need a quality defensive center fielder right now, which Bourn would provide. The current season has value and the upgrade from Kirk Nieuwenhuis to Bourn should not be diminished because a playoff season seems a long shot. The only way to give the team a shot to compete is to accumulate value. The Shaun Marcum signing potentially did that and a Bourn addition would, too.

This is all predicated on the Mets being able to pick up Bourn on a short deal. A three-year contract would be ideal because the financial outlay would not be outrageous and he should be productive over the life of the deal. Most of the people who are against surrendering the draft pick under any circumstances think it would make sense to wait until the Mets are competitive to enter the free agent market.

But do those same people think the Mets will still be doormats in 2015? Do they project Nieuwenhuis or Matt Den Dekker to be a 3-WAR player that season? Do they think there will be a free agent with Bourn’s skill set available at the exact time the Mets need it?

However, among all of the objections to signing Bourn, perhaps the most significant issue is this: If you are comfortable surrendering a draft pick to sign a free agent – do you want that player to be Bourn? It seems pretty clear that the Mets are not going to have an expensive player at every position, so essentially it’s imperative for the team to get the proverbial most bang for the buck when it does venture into free agency. Is a player whose calling card is defense worth sinking one of your few eight-figure contracts into?

The Mets are paying David Wright to be an All-Star. They hope Ike Davis can become a consistent 30-HR threat. They are punting defense at second base with Daniel Murphy – and perhaps one day soon with Wilmer Flores. They are again punting defense trying to turn Lucas Duda into an outfielder. It does not seem unreasonable to have a stud defensive player in center field with this particular collection of players, especially given that the club is emphasizing starting pitching, anyway.

One final thought – some have speculated that a player who depends on their legs like Bourn is subject to age quicker than a hitter who depends on their bat. But this is simply not true. Jeff Zimmerman of Beyond the Box Score found the following:

” Fast players age extremely well from their peaks at 26 to 31, then they lose on average fewer then five runs over five seasons.”

Recall the supposition that was used to project Bourn’s worth on the mythical three-year deal – that he would decline five runs per year. Zimmerman’s research shows that Bourn’s class of player would lose this over a five-year period, not annually. So, instead of a 12-WAR player, we might more realistically be looking at a 13.8-WAR player.

Which only makes me more willing to surrender the #11 pick if the dollars and years make sense.

Post navigation

33 comments for “Michael Bourn vs. #11 pick: A 100-player sample”

Ben

January 27, 2013 at 8:55 pm

As one of the many irrational long suffering Mets fans, I would love to have Bourn patrolling center field for the next 4-5 years, helping our young fire ballers by cutting down the amount of field Duda actually has to cover. I also agree that the likelihood of getting something substantial from the 11th pick is very low. Nevertheless, giving up the 11th pick to sign Bourn does more than just give up that pick. In today’s baseball, losing that pick effects the entire draft. We lose the money the 11th pick affords, lowering our bonus pool substantially. Three years ago, the easy answer is, whatever, we will just pay overslot in the 2nd and 3rd rounds (not that the Mets usually did that). Now, the loss of that money will change the entire way that the Mets can conduct the draft, and not for the better.

With the new draft rules, there are basically three scenarios. You can look to sign every player for slot, you can look to go over on your first pick and skimp elsewhere or you can skimp on your first pick and use the money later in the draft. By far, the worst seems to be skimping in the first round, where you hopefully draft the best player.

The Mets tried this approach last year. They took a guy in Cecchini willing to take less than slot money and used the extra cash elsewhere in the draft. This was so successful they couldn’t even come to terms with their second-round pick.

I much prefer the approach that the Nationals used when they skimped elsewhere to go over slot in the first round.

We have no idea what kind of approach Sandy Alderson will take if he keeps the #11 pick. I’d like to think he’ll do it the exact opposite of the way he did in 2012. But if he’s going to look for a player who’ll sign for below-slot money again — that’s yet another reason to prefer going after Bourn.

I have said this five times this week in comments on five different websights, no matter what the 11th pick will take several years to pan out or not pan out and in the meantime the mets
will have a gold glove CF who can lead off,give us speed at the top of the lineup, steal bases
and score runs for the next 3-5 years! I believe SA and the Wilpons are just using the draft
pick as an excuse not to spend the money and appearing to there fans like there really trying
to improve the club! They have had months to make a trade or to sign a FA that wouldn’t cost
them the 11th pick this year!! For a team that says there young pitching including Wheeler
is there future and will help them to compete would want a gold glove center fielder! I feel
sorry for there pitchers and for the fans!!

Fantastic article ! The #1 objective of every team each year should be to make the playoffs. 1 out of every 3 teams make the playoffs. That is not bad odds, a lot better than the odds for a 11th pick becoming a star of Bourne’s caliber. A GM should always look to improve the major league team at every opportunity without overpaying. Bourne at anything under 18m per year is fair and market value. One lesson Alderson has taught me is that you can build a good farm system by trading aging stars. As Name has said on many posts, the draft is a crap shoot, and I couldn’t agree more.If the Mets are going to rely on a strong pitching staff then the complement should be a strong defense and signing Bourne would be a step in the right direction,

Brian, I really like the way you described your changing perspective on Bourn. I’d like to add another thought.
If, as you stated, the Mets can sign Bourn to a three year contract, that would give the team added flexibility at some point to trade him to a contender in need of an outfielder (ala Beltran). If that happened the Mets would, hopefully, gain some young talent and divest themselves of
Bourn’s contract. I like the chance that the future success of this young talent (might be more than one) would be greater than the 11 pick in the draft.
The other advantage I see in signing Bourn is the defensive help it would provide to a pitching staff in a big ballpark. I don’t like the thought of poor defense increasing the physical and emotional stress on the team’s young arms.

This has been an interesting interlude in the ’13 Mets story. I confess to have stood on both sides of the Bourn yes/no at different times, and well, both sides at the same time. In my experience, all this hemming and hawing says one thing: I dont think Bourn is our guy. I understand both sides. Im not impressed with the ’14 FA class for sure, so I can see going after him. I still cant get over the basic fact: The 2013 Mets will not win 81 games, and likely not 75 games, with or without Bourn. In a division where the Nats and Braves are clearly superior in vertually any way you can slice up a team, paying a lot for Bourn’s services make no sense to me at all. Furthermore, diComo’s The Mets relevancy begins in 2015 if you ask me, and extends for 3 years before we start to face losing control of a number of players. Im quite satisfied bringing in Kirk and MdD as tryouts for a home in FLushing. With a lot coming off the books next year, we need to see exactly what we do have who might play outfield and hit the ball this year. By this time next year we will know an awful lot about where we really stand, and that should give the clarity we need for making the right decisions about our needs. I understand we cant make moves based on other teams, but we need to be realistic, especially when shelling out for a major contract like Bourn would cost…will he be a quality player when we need it, or another FA bust, a situation we all know too well? Anyway, that this matter has triggered so much agony tells me I dont think its the right move at this time.

This implies that there is a better use for the money. Which would be what?

Just as an example, if the Mets budget was $90MM in payroll in 2013 and $100MM in 2014 … and they spend $75MM in 2013, its not like I expect them to spend $115MM in 2014.

And on the whole … not directly at you, Chris F, but … why are people occupying themselves with what *might be* in 2015? I mean, in the winter of 2009, did anyone project the power of baseball would have shifted to the District of Columbia?

I think as other teams have filled their needs in signing other center field free agents or by trading, Bourn’s options are rapidly diminishing. But I don’t think he will sign for three years because at age 33 his hopes of landing another big contract are not realistic. Either four years or a one year contract. I was curious what other teams are looking for a center fielder? Texas? I think they are close to their budget limit. Seattle? Cleveland? The opportunity is there but are the Mets going to spend the money? As I stated before back load the offer by offering say 10 million the first year.

Fantastic article, Brian. To me, this all comes down to years. If the Mets are trying to exploit Boras’ miscalculation of the market for Bourn by signing him to a one year deal then this is absolutely the wrong move. Boras has done it with his client’s before in order to line them up for a bigger pay day the next year. Giving up the 11th draft pick is not the way to go if the intention is just one year, IMO. It’s just a waste. I also don’t think a guaranteed 4 or 5 year deal for Bourn is smart.

I guess I would be 100% on board with this is the deal is for what you suggest, 3 years. I feel like that kind of deal is a perfect balance of risk on both ends.

I would be okay with a one-year deal, too. He’s likely to turn in his best year in the first year of the deal and the worst thing that happens is that you make the qualifying offer and get the extra draft pick.

Brian,
This was by far the best analysis I have seen on the Bourn question, excellent work. Very important points that are being overlooked include how a legit CF/leadoff hitter can make several players better – every pitcher with Gold Glove D, Duda with less ground to cover, Tejada is relieved of leading off, DW and Ike get more RBI chances. Three years is ideal…if anyone offers anything close to the asking price, Alderson should find a way to get Coco Crisp to fill the same needs.

I guess I just see things differently than most of you. Three years is the last move I would make for Bourn. All I can see is passing on him says that the draft pick and time to competitiveness make it such that paying him a reasonable salary is not worth it. Signing him for me means 4-5 years, and makes Bourn part of a playoff team, and thus a solution to the problem. But to me 1-3 years is just paying a huge salary for a team that will place 3rd or 4th each season. Why dump that kind of cash? (By the way, Im not buying into him adding enough wins to offset RAs loss or filling seats at Citi…Bourn wont do either like RA did). Im all or nothing…and this morning, leading towards nothing.

1) A contract of 3 or fewer years
2) A loss of their 2nd round pick
3) A contract that isn’t backloaded

I doubt Bourn would agree to the first, the second is up in the air, and I doubt the Mets would do the third. As such, I don’t see how the Mets sign him without sabotaging their future.

Also, Brian, good article, but you missed part of the value of their 11th pick. In simply framing it around whether or not he’ll one day become a productive major leaguer, you missed mentioning his value as a potential trade piece. At the very least, whether their 11th pick ends up with a 12+ bWAR or not, he’ll assuredly (at some point) be a top 10 prospect and likely a top 5 prospect.

This then begs the question, if the Mets are looking to add a major league outfielder to the team two years from now (fair odds with or without Bourn), who is likely to have more trade value to acquire that outfielder? An expensive, 32-year-old outfielder in Bourn or a top 5 prospect (not to mention the additional money/players the Mets will have from not spending money on Bourn)?

Well done, you beat me to the post about added trade value from a draft pick. I make a more specific example using a recent first round draft pick below.

Sure there may not be a free agent available to fill CF when we’re ready to make a run if we don’t lock down Bourn, but alternatively, if Bourn signs for only a few years and leaves before we’re playoff bound, we won’t have the #11 to dangle for a CF by trade.

As for your three points, I think #2 is the least likely this late in the season. Soriano’s contract shows Boras will take less years if he can still get market value (Soriano wanted three) and the recent deal with David Wright shows the mets are at least considerate of placing more value on the years where less production is likely to occur.

If the Mets get the MLB to do them a solid on removing the first round draft consideration, they’re almost forced to sign Bourn as the MLB not like the Mets looking the gift horse in the mouth.

Hi J – thanks for reading and commenting! I take it you believe in planets aligning.

Teams don’t generally trade productive CFers.
The Mets under Alderson don’t generally trade minor leaguers at all
The Mets typically declare their top prospects off limits since the Kazmir disaster

You mentioned Milledge earlier — they didn’t trade him when he was a star, they waited until he had lost almost all of his luster. And while they did get two “starters” for him in Schneider and Church – they combined for 4.0 fWAR in two years, so they were way below average.

From a theoretical POV – yeah, the Mets could trade the #11 pick at some future point in time. But realistically, the prospect likely will either not bring back much in a deal or he will be considered off limits because he profiles as a star player.

To your first point, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a CFer that they trade for. If the Mets can get two above average corner outfielders, they should be able to be competitive with their third best OFer being a defensive CFer i.e. Cowgill or den Dekker (potentially).

To your second point, the Mets under Alderson have never been in a position where they would want to trade minor leaguers. Although in an under-the-radar trade they did craftily move Marte for Cowgill.

To your third point, the Kazmir disaster was two GMs ago so that is meaningless. Also, Minaya traded arguably 4 of the Mets’ top 5 prospects for Santana. But again, that too is meaningless. Similar to the second point though, Alderson hasn’t even needed to declare anyone off limits since the Mets haven’t been in the market for major league talent. And under Alderson there has always been a spot open for a prospect when he was ready (or before he was ready in some cases). Flores on the other hand, if he can’t cut it at 2b, will provide the perfect opportunity for Alderson to trade a top prospect.

Great article. I too was a Bourn downer, but the acquisition of Shaun Marcum was the first step in seeing Bourn as a possibility. Bourn was on the short list of list of outfielders who make a team better (not just are better than a player on the team, like Delmon Young would have been.)
However, Scott Boras contracts and the loss of the draft pick made me think this was unreasonable. Marcum doesn’t fill the hole left by Dickey, but he should plug up most of the leak. We went from having a questionable 1 (Santana) and 2-3 #3 or 4 pitchers and a AAA pitcher to adding in a #2 (when Marcum is actually healthy) pitcher. A Bourn deal would make the team better, and perhaps good enough for a run at a second wild card spot.

There’s some additional value in the #11 draft pick may that may not actually come from that player playing in Blue and Orange, rather, those are the kind of players with the high upside you trade for a strong reliever, or the missing everyday player that your playoff/championship team is short. Take for example Lastings Milledge, a 12th overall pick. He was a bust, but the Mets were able to pawn him off for two starting players, who were pieces of the 2008 almost playoff team. Milledge was never as good as any of the players they got in the trade, but his first round draft status bought him some cred.

Is that extra value plus the possibilty that the #11 becomes an all-star for the Mets enough not to sign Bourn to a 3 (plus an option) year deal? It’s closer, but it’s still doesn’t seem like enough not to sign Bourn.

Additionally, Alderson did add a caveat to his “we’re not giving up the #11 pick stance” by saying in a recent interview that there may be enough stockpiled talent to miss out on a first round pick for Bourn.

What if I told you we had an outfielder in our system that hit .285/.360/.464/.825 as a 24 year old in 507 AA at bats and then hit .354/.430/.554/.984 as a 25 year old in 395 AAA at bats. We would be all over him! Let’s give the Cow a chance in CF!!

a lot of work, not something I would want to have done (kudos to you, B). However, I believe that a> GMs value drafts much higher today than ever before, and *value* is and 2> drafting is still an inexact science, so I wanted to use a slightly wider swath to determine what might come from a pick.

So with limited time, I just drew up roughly 20 or so picks from 2009 and 2010 and posted them below. I came up with 9 out of 22 that were completely worthless. But of the remaining 13, I’d say the majority were selections of some pretty great value. Consider that the Mets just traded away a CYA winner for a player like Caleb Cowart. And we aren’t working in a vacuum, because the $14-15MM could be getting spent on BJ Upton instead of Bourn, PLUS you could have the picks below.

I’m not going to get all Excel on this deal. I don’t know what the importance is here, other than to point out that access to Drew Storen, Shelby Miller, Caleb Cowart, Chris Sale, Yasmani Grandal, Jacob Turner, Grant Green and AJ Pollock is pretty crucial. Anyways, for consideration …

There is good cause for Sandy to value a pick that high and I think what I am showing here is that talent evaluation can’t be quite as linear as WAR over a three year time period.

How do you value D’Arnaud or Wheeler? Apparently, picks of that value have some extreme value on their own, whether or not they deliver to the team that drafted them. (LOL. I guess D’Arnaud is worth a stack then, huh?)

Between Santana, Buck and Francisco the Mets will have almost 40 million dollars less on their payroll for 2014. If Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton can sign back loaded contracts then I’m sure Bourn would do the same so long as the total meets his expectations. It helps the Mets for 2013 due to budget constraints. He’ll solidify the outfield taking the pressure off the kids and he fills a major void at the lead off position. How does 10 million for 2012 then 17 for the next 3 years? When free agency began I thought those numbers would of been to low. Now that most of the teams that were looking for center fielders have gone elsewhere what options does he have left? I think the Rangers are at their limit and I don’t see him going to Seattle or Cleveland.

Having Duda cover less ground in the outfield will surely prevent a few costly errors and give him more opportunity to work on developing his bat more, instead of having to work extra hard on his abysmal defense. As the “bourn conundrum” stated, Bourn improves the mets in so many more intangible ways than statistical. His presence moves tejada into the 2nd spot(where he is a much better fit) and gives Wright and Davis someone drive. in Having bourn would also give brandon nimmo more time to develop in the minors. With a AAA outfield the mets have now(and likely for the next several years without bourn) Mets management might feel pressure to rush Nimmo to the majors and hurt his development.